President Obama speaks at the Easter Prayer Breakfast (courtesy whitehouse.gov)

Back in 2006, then Senatorial candidate Obama filled-out a questionnaire that asked “do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” The form was returned with the typed word “yes.” During his first presidential election, Obama left voters (and your humble scribe) with the impression that he viewed gun control as a political third rail/non-issue. If you like your gun you can keep your gun. Like that. And then Newtown . . .

The President hopped on the civilian disarmament train and rode it all the way – to the end of the platform. Thank God. Since that resounding defeat, the President has repeated his call for “common sense” gun control legislation at every opportunity. Specifically, after every firearm-involved atrocity, from the Gabby Giffords shooting to the Aurora massacre to the Kansas City attack on Jews. In each and every case Obama has renewed his clarion call to legislators to infringe upon Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

The above image is from yesterday’s Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House. Mr. Obama, a man who didn’t attend church on Christmas day, signalled his continued support for gun control. “No one should ever have to fear for their safety when they go to pray,” he pronounced to the assembled religious leaders. “Americans should use their gun rights to protect each other from persecution.” JK. Assuming the President at least somewhat believes the first part of that statement, it’s a telling remark. It indicates that our Commander-in-Chief suffers from the same dystopian utopianism that afflicts all gun control advocates.

In other words, what kind of person believes there’s any situation where you shouldn’t fear for your safety? Not fear as in cower in fear. Fear as in consider the possibility of danger to the point where you take “common sense” precautions to safeguard your life and the lives of your loved ones. When you put on your seatbelt, for example, you do so because you fear death or grievous bodily harm. Nothing wrong with that. And to answer that question, a person who believes in fear-free zones is a person who wants to live in a world without danger.

Of course, there is no such world. It never existed, it doesn’t exist and it will never exist. Everything we do as humans has an element of danger to it, from blogging at Starbucks to attending a synagogue. Especially attending a synagogue. Any Jew who believes he should be able to go to temple and pray without fear – as Mr. Obama suggests – is a Jew who believes in unicorns. Or might as well do. How many millions of Jews must die, how many anti-semitic attacks must American Jews endure, before they realize that they will never, ever be safe from persecution? And take sensible steps to minimize the risk.

More to the point, the President’s promised panacea is a literal impossibility. Strike that. It’s possible to not fear for your safety when you go to pray, but it’s not advisable. We in the gun community call that kind of blissfully ignorant mental state “condition white,” a term indicating zero situational awareness. A term which means you’re not scanning your environment for threats. Which means you will be taken completely unawares if an attack occurs, placing you at a large strategic disadvantage. Not good.

Actually, it is good – for attackers. AND the people in whom the oblivious place their trust.

Assuming the President knows that bad things happen to good people no matter what politicians say or do (i.e. he’s lying), lobbying for a day when people can worship without fear is another way of selling civilian disarmament to the rubes. More gun control, less fear. Like that. Is it too much to further suggest that the President and other pols pushing gun control know that disarmed civilians are more, shall we say, politically pliable? To the point where the government can assume total control over their lives – for their own good? It’s not like we haven’t seen that philosophy in action throughout history, all over the world and in current events.

I have no idea if President Obama is a proto-fascist. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…. Yes, but – no one gets to be President of the United States without ducking tough questions of character and dodging examinations of his or her core beliefs. One thing we know for sure: President Obama wants to restrict Americans’ firearms freedom. Anyone who wants to restrict freedom – especially in the name of an entirely illusory idea of safety – is no friend of ours. Obama’s attempt to provide comfort to those saddened and sickened by the attack in Kansas City reveals his inherent abject inability to pull off the road to hell. 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

124 COMMENTS

  1. Actually, none of the victims of the Kansas City shootings were Jews. Two were Methodists and the lone woman was Catholic.

    The Jewish Community Center has thousands of members, many of them non-Jewish. Likewise, Village Shalom is a retirement home to people of all religions and ethnic origins.

    These facts do not detract from your point, but they do make another point very strongly — nasty scvmbags like Frazier Cross are dangerous to anyone and everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. Nazis have no friends.

    • Let’s try this one more time….

      It matters not that the victims were, or were not, Jews.

      The man who shot and killed people wanted to kill Jews.

      The man who shot people at the JEWISH Community Center and the JEWISH retirement facility was clearly doing so because of his long and well documented rabid anti-Semitism. He was grinning and screaming “Heil Hitler!” from the back of the patrol car the put him in. He was a former Grand Dragon of the KKK. You can hear him talking about the Jews.

      All anyone has to do is use this amazing thing called “Google.”

      • Well, then, Pope Paul, use your google to look up the word “officious.” You’ll find it under your picture.

      • This is why hate crime laws are a joke. Somehow we are to believe that this a-hole is more of an a-hole for wanting to kill a group of people that he deems different? The laws then affirm his apparent greater a-holery by legitimizing that the aforementioned targeted group is different because the punishment is greater than if he just went out and killed (in this case) the same three people who were not of that different group that he hates. This guy murdered three people and is/was/and shall be an a-hole, no matter who he targeted or why.

      • Use your brain not google. Find another search engine that is not of the evil empire.

        So you’re saying he was a typically inept progressive of the dem leaning ilk?

      • He supposedly asked people if they were Jewish. And he only killed the 3 who said “No”?
        He didn’t do a very good job if he was out to kill Jews.

        He was also a a decades long Justice department asset.

  2. I think you’re giving him a lot of credit.

    He’s a figurehead, he doesn’t form his opinions. He just goes along with whatever he thinks will make him look good and get his cronies elected. It’s pretty obvious he isn’t completely against guns, if he was he would ban ALL firearm imports in a heartbeat. He’s more concerned about his legacy than doing what he actually believes though. (Also, don’t forget that Mitt Romney has passed WAY worse legislation than he has with regards to gun rights. If he was president, we would have universal background checks right now.)

    • If you listened to the 2012 debates, you heard Romney promise not to seek any new gun-related legislation. But you and 4 million others didn’t vote, and so Obama was elected. But you’re not happy with Obama. So.

      At the rate the ‘various motivations’ right is going, the nation will be electing Che Guevara 3.0, because the Republican candidate once voted for, well, something they don’t like, so the right wing stayed home.

      Who needs Saul Alinsky when so-called conservatives volunteer for the camps?

      • Nah, I didn’t vote for Romney because I wasn’t even 18 in 2012.

        I wouldn’t have voted for him either way, because voting for the lesser evil is STILL evil. All I can hope for is the last thing Obama does in office is reschedule marijuana and pardon anyone who has a marijuana related offense.

        • This is something I always asked my Pot induced friends. Why are you looking to President Obama to allow you to use Marijuana? You shouldn’t be begging for freedom to smoke pot. If you truly want that right, you need to fight for it, take it to your local and state level and win there. Than force the Federal government to yield. You cannot have the mentality where one man dictates the legality of your actions.

      • @ropingdown, yeah well of course! If the Returdican votes for gun control and has a record for supporting gun control, we are supposed to excuse him because he is a Returdican. Got it. Returdican gun control = good. Demoturd gun control = bad.

    • “He’s a figurehead, he doesn’t form his opinions.”

      This right here. Obama isn’t a liberal. He’s not even much of a Democrat. He’s an authoritarian. The same as Romney, McCain, Bush 2, both Clintons, Bush 1, Reagan, on and on back. The goal is control, and using fear of the other “political party” to get votes while the same donors and masters control both sides of the authoritarian party. Indeed, the greatest political struggle of our time is not left against right, it is authoritarian against libertarian.

      • John, you can tie BO to Reagan, wow I am really learning some new shit, I’m going to take a break so I can PUKE! Shiiiiitt.

  3. “Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say ‘we are not afraid,’ and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.”

    With or without Congress. What was that about quacking like a duck?

  4. @RF, so you actually believed that lying sack of dirty underwear? “During his first presidential election, Obama left voters (and your humble scribe) with the impression that he viewed gun control as a political third rail/non-issue. If you like your gun you can keep your gun. Like that.”

    Seriously? How could you? Did you not do your homework?

    • RF was in Rhode Island then. He’s in Texas now. Probably has a bit of syntonic mood affiliation in his genes.

  5. Wait a minute a billion dollars to elect a president and we think he has any actual opinion of his own?

    • He hasn’t the intelligence to form an opinion, much less advocate it. He’s a mouthpiece for the real president(s). Recheck his school records, he has to be the stupidest president elected in a century.

  6. easy to say we should all live our lives without fear when you have a shitload of armed people protecting your a$$ for life (cute how he signed that perk back into law after Clinton took it out). . . . .

    When Barry gives up all of his armed security, we can discuss disarming me. ‘k?

  8. So a man who has a small army of guards who carry fully automatic weapons has a problem with my owning a semi automatic weapon…. Let him lead by example then…and demonstrate how one can live without firearms around them and live in safety. If he can do it, anyone can do it. If he can’t…well, then we should all be able to protect ourselves as he does. He’s a hypocrit…and let’s let Joe Biden’s SS team have only double barrel shotguns…nothing but. Ya know, cause those AR-15s are complicated to use.

  9. “No one should ever have to fear for their safety when they go to pray…” unless I’ve approved the drone strike. ~ BO

    Fin

  10. What exactly is common sense gun control, to a person that would rather just ban all guns and get it over with?? That pretty much leaves the door open to whatever he feels like doing from one day to the next.
    You will NEVER be without gun violence, even if you banned all guns! What is so hard about that to understand? Oh how I wish I could tell him that directly. If he would actually READ some of these posts, he would realize how pissed off we are getting about the subject.

  11. So why is there an armed guard in the corner in that picture above?

    I’m sure all of the attendees at that meeting were screened, and it’s definitely a “gun free zone”.

    What could he possibly be worried about?

    • There is an armed guard in the picture because it is not possible to take his picture from any angle without including at least one that you can recognize, probably at least 3 more that you cannot. I’ll bet there are no semiautomatic weapons among them.

  12. “no one gets to be President of the United States without ducking tough questions of character and dodging examinations of his or her core beliefs.”

    Until Obama. We still know less about him than perhaps any president in history. No vetting, and any attempt to vet him met/meets with resistance. Any info that is uncovered is ignored by the press.

    • Exactly.

      How is it that he got through not one, but two Ivy League schools and it seems no one remembers him in class or his performance in class?

      He won elections to the state senate and then the US Senate in Illinois not by running on his own merits, but by digging up dirt on his opponents, while having no discoverable record of his own.

  13. +1000000 RF. Obama is even worse than you think. Actively anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. Do you suppose Barry Soetoro bowing to Mecca back in Indonesia had any effect on his beliefs? BTW who was FOOLED by Barack Obama in 2006, 2008 or 2012? Rated most leftwing in the senate early on.

    • Unfortunately too many. I don’t understand how he got into office to begin with either. But if we apply occam’s razor we are left with two possible scenarios. One, he stole the election or two, there really are more people who believe in his philosophies. In either case these are chilling out comes.

      Does the majority of the populous believe as he does and us poor red necks clinging to our God and Guns really are out of touch with the rest of the country or……was the election stolen?

      It’s staggering to think that either could be true in this day and age. But no other scenario leads to one of the two logical conclusions.

      • He was elected purely and simply by leftist statist Liberals who could not under any circumstances force themselves to vote AGAINST a black candidate.

        And more importantly, the GOP has insisted in too many of the last elections to run dead horse RINOs instead of real conservatives who have principals and will actually stand up for them. Mitt Romney was Obama lite, for God’s sake, and John McCain acted on every occasion like dissing Obama would result in another session with those North Viet Nam prison guards.

        The Liberal/Progressives will continue to win, and erode or Constitutional protections, until the entrenched GOP RINOs are forced out and a real Conservative with balls (or fortitude, if it’s a woman) is willing to stand up for us and the Constitution this country was founded on.

    • I was fooled by the DNC speech he gave in, uh, 2006? 2004? I was dazzled, allowed as how I’d be watching, he could go far. However, I WAS watching, as he betrayed his true leanings, and by the time I got to vote for him in 2008, there was no chance. But he DID fool me for a while.

  14. “And then Newtown . . . The President hopped on the civilian disarmament train and rode it all the way – to the end of the platform.”

    That’s not quite how I remember it. He’s always been on the civilian disarmament train, just that the train didn’t pick up much steam until after Newtown.

    You allude to it yourself: his calls for gun control after the Tucson and Aurora shootings predate Sandy Hook.

  15. I remember Ronald Reagan being asked why he didn’t attend church regularly. His response referred to the Secret Service nightmare that exists whenever the POTUS sticks himself in a crowd of people, along with the fact that any attack on his life would endanger many others in such a crowd. History proved him right about that.

    Anyway, most Christians don’t worship on Christmas day (unless it falls on a Sunday). Many of us worship on Christmas Eve, though.

    As for the current POTUS, he’s just pandering to the delusional left that elected him. Nothing more, nothing less. When you have no plan, no workable agenda and no accomplishments, you pander.

  17. Long and short is that believing in a violence free utopia is naive, foolhardy, and counter productive. In theory, the magical gun free zone that is the suburban Pittsburgh school; the students should have been safe in the fool’s mind. But one 16 year old brought the imperfect reality and ugly side of human nature to the forefront.

    In Wisconsin, we have 2 examples of why one should not assume a place of worship is automatically a safe place. The Sikh Temple was just the most recent, but Terry Ratzman showed this reality long before Oak Creek. In truth, it can happen anywhere. You can either ignore that fact (blissful ignorance until…), or accept that fact. If you accept it, then you can let that knowledge and related fear ruin your life or empower yourself by engaging your mind and senses.

  18. In my opinion, the only respectable politicians who ever lived were Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Theodore Roosevelt.

      • @Sam Spade, amen. TR…despite my propensity to like him as a man, brought Progressivism to the Returdican party.

      • TR was the warm-up act for Woodrow Wilson, the first true fascist we had in the White House.

        People really need to re-read the history of the Progressive Era about 100 years ago. The MDA women would have fit right in with the women back then, the perpetual buttinskies of American politics, the noisy and pestilent harridans and beta males who were nagging all of the country about every stupid thing that put a bee in in their bustle.

    • Teddy Roosevelt was a commie!

      “Regulation, not obstruction. Wider participation in fruits of labor. Federal control of interstate business. Shifting the burden from poor to rich, from employee to employer.” T.R. final annual message to congress

    • I’d add Hammurabi, one of the first ruler/leader known to have established rule by law rather than by whatever he felt like; and who had the laws posted in plain Akkadian so anybody could learn what the law was and what was expected of them.

      But more to the point, I think you’re talking about statesmen, not politicians. Different beasts. The one aspires to be an effective servant of the people; the other, their master.

    • Abraham Lincoln presided over the wartime deaths of more Americans than all other Presidents in history, combined. Sorry, but you can’t climb to the height of great politicians over a mountain of American bodies.

      • I have to agree. Lincoln was also ready to shred the Constitution in “order to save the Republic.”

      • I have read the Constitution many times and I have yet to find anything in that document that prohibits any state from leaving the Union. States joined the Union voluntarily and did not by so doing become slaves to the federal government of the Union itself.

        Abraham linking promoted and oversaw an unconstitutional war that resulted in the deaths of over 600,000 men for purely personal political motives, not because he wanted to free the poor negro slaves.

        While the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to prevent secession of any State, The Declaration of Independence, the moral framework upon which this country was established through revolution, for definitely states that:

        “[…]Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

        Regardless of their opinions on the enslavement of the negroes, and I find the very idea abhorrent, the Confederacy had every right to break away from a federal government they saw as destructive and not in accordance with the consent of those governed. While Lincoln MAY have had justification to invade the South in a humanitarian attempt to free the people enslaved there (which was NOT his initial motivation), he certainly had no legal or Constitutional grounds to force them to remain in the Union.

        • I will make the argument that the Confederacy had no right to break away due to their earlier threat to do so if Lincoln was elected. So after losing power in the Federal government (including Congress) as a result of elections, the southern Democrats thumbed their noses to the rest of the states and seceded. I might add that the south had long used the instruments of Federal government to impose their own will on the North (ie Fugitive slave laws) and even if two wrongs do not make a right, you can lambast one wrong by ignoring the other.

          Also, never use Slavery as your Casus belli.

    • You know, George Washington led the crackdown on the Whiskey Rebellion against taxes from the federal government. So really, there’s not a single president you would like. Ever. Is that a problem with the current political right in America or a problem with the Presidents?

  20. The only people who didn’t know Obama was going to be rabidly anti-gun were deliberately clueless.

    Obama was on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002. If you don’t know who the Joyce Foundation is, then you haven’t really been around RKBA issues for very long, or worked all that hard at learning who are the good guys vs. the bad guys.

  21. Yeah most Christians don’t attend church on Christmas Day. So let’s stop trying to hold that against him. He makes enough poor decisions to lead someone to conclude that he isn’t a believer, without the “he didn’t go to church on Christmas” argument.

    • I’m not really clear on what his going to church (or not) on Christmas (or any other day) has to do with his respect (or egregious lack thereof) for the 2nd Amendment, anyway.

      As the shitstorm of comments on the “Why It’s Hard To Discuss Guns Rationally With Some People” article from a couple days ago show, it’s probably in our best interest as a group to keep religion and guns as separate issues.

      • Here, here.

        When the SHTF do you really want to base your response on whether or not you agree with the religious philosophy or spiritual beliefs of the man standing alongside you?

      • I don’t go to church at all, for about 40 years now, wtf does that have to do with anything? The damn POPE wants us to all give up our guns and live in peace with the unicorns and his fellow space cadets. I live in the real world, and in this world there are real dangers which must be confronted with real force. I think this lovely forum should keep the discussions between the lines defining reality.

  22. I’m sure mr. O is really an nice guy to hang out with drinking beers but then again so would I if I could take as many vacations, rounds of golf and blow through tax payer money like this guy. This guy could careless about peoples rights and more about his self endulgence.
    That is all

    • I’m sure he’s a complete bore personally. I really hate when these pols and pundits get on tv and invariably say, “I like him personally. I’m sure he’s a very nice guy.” I’m just as sure he’s an evil narcissistic ideologue intent on enhancing his own power at any cost. And also boring. very, very boring….

  23. This irritates me beyond all coherent thought. Every small town police department needs an armored vehicle or two because the world is so crazy but the rest of us should just relax and prepare to call 911 if need be? The maddening part is that so many people are okay with that.

    • I for one am not ok with that. Every city should be able to defend itself from the criminals that wish to destroy it. The smaller cities seem in most cases just easier to defend because it seems that more people own guns and are willing to use them when S does hit the fan. I have lived in this small town I’m in now for 10 years and I have had personal experience with criminals twice in my immediate area and twice more within 2 miles, both of those which were drug related murders. I am quite tired of the system just up and saying we are not allowed to own guns or defend ourselves when trouble comes knocking, or try to regulate what guns we can have (beyond fully automatic).

  24. As to him not going to church Christmas Day, three points; first, who gives a shit? Second, that’s his personal family business and none of mine. Third, I go Christmas Eve service, not Christmas Day. That’s when the super old people go. 🙂

  25. Sadly, blind blowhards on the right are virtually indistinguishable from blind blowhards on the left.

  26. This guy makes me want to PUKE, sorry for my forward ness, can’t help myself. What it is, is what it is! Keep safe out there and group up when you can. In numbers they cannot win!

  27. TTAG stated
    “Barack Obama = gun grabber” (NON-FACTUAL)!

    Barack Obama = ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST (DEMONSTRATED FACT)!!!
    As far as Obama and his ilk are concerned, the Constitutions just get in the way of WANNA-BE Emperor’s Commands and/or Decrees and/or Dictates and/or Edicts and/or Proclamations!!!

    I hate the term GUN GRABBER, it MINIMIZES the criminals and their ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALISTIC CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR… where instead you should be shouting as loud as possible and as often as possible that they are ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALISTS and that their behavior IS DEMONSTRATED FACTUAL ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALISTIC BEHAVIOR!!!

    Otherwise you are playing right into their favorite, which is re-terming things to meanings other than what they really mean… but ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST can NOT be changed to mean anything other than what it states!

  28. Didn’t trust Obama in 2007 on the campaign trail, and trust him even less now. I started buying guns and ammo in earnest when I foresaw that our nation was dumb enough to fall for Hope and Change without any concrete plan of what that would be. As a Joyce / Ivy League man the gun control writing was on the wall.

    If only we could have mustered the military might in Benghazi that we did against Clive Bundy, then more Americans will be alive today. The lack of response to a legitimate attack cost lives, while Federal bullies showed a massive armed presence against a rancher who refused to be bullied. Sadly, the next unqualified applicant to the throne will be one Hillary Clinton. She’ll get the liberal vote, much of the black vote if she chooses her words carefully and promises entitlements, the Dem vote, and the lion’s share of women voters. That will be enough for an easy victory unless the Republicans can put forth a legitimate candidate like Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul. I fear voters won’t pick them for fears of their pro-life pro-traditional marriage stances. The thing is, those issues matter a whole lot less than the RKBA, the Bill of Rights, a balanced budget, and a pro-freedom government.

    While Obama continues to worry me, the stupidity and apathy of large segments of the American voting populace worries me more. I pray that we haven’t reached an “idiocracy” point (where dumb people simply outnumber the savvy voter), but we are certainly close.

    • “If only we could have mustered the military might in Benghazi that we did against Clive Bundy, then more Americans will be alive today.”

      If only the military had responded to a surprise terror attack with little warning in a remote town in Libya the way law enforcement responded during a buildup of several days that came at the culmination of repeated ignored court orders. If they’d had that kind of level of advance notice for Benghazi, the ambassador never would have even gone.

      I don’t understand people who get more upset about 1 terrorist attack on a satellite embassy than they do about the many terrorist attacks during the preceding decade, or the *thousands of American soldiers who died in Iraq for a flipping lie*.

    • “That will be enough for an easy victory unless the Republicans can put forth a legitimate candidate like Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul. I fear voters won’t pick them for fears of their pro-life pro-traditional marriage stances. The thing is, those issues matter a whole lot less than the RKBA, the Bill of Rights, a balanced budget, and a pro-freedom government.”

      The biggest problem with the Republican Party today is that its adherent claim to be pro-freedom and against big government, and then think that “freedom” and “small government” means telling people who can marry whom, and telling women what they can do with their bodies. You’re not pro-freedom. You’re pro-“what I want to do but screw you”. The libertarians have been right on both issues for years. From the libertarian party platform:

      1.3 Personal Relationships

      Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

      1.4 Abortion

      Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

      http://www.lp.org/platform

      As long as Republicans are anti-freedom, they will never win against the other anti-freedom party.

        • @jerry, riiiight…..extend it on out to – ‘feel free to take your child’s life right up until the time he/she turns 18’… I mean come on man, its all about freedom and to hell with personal responsibility!

        • Abortion up until a couple weeks before the point of viability, and past that point only for the health of the mother. Otherwise you’re eliminating the control a person has over their body, in order to enforce a religious rule.

          Infanticide? That’s from the Bible. I wouldn’t go that far, but God did.

          1 Samuel 15:2-3
          “I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.”

          Exodus 21:22-25 has the punishment for causing a woman’s miscarriage set at a fine determined by the woman’s husband and the elders. And this in a culture where not being a virgin on your wedding night meant you could be stoned.

          I get that abortion has been made into a big issue for people identifying as Christians, but strict pro-life positions aren’t supported by the Bible. The poetic sections can be interpreted in such a way as to talk about God valuing people “in the womb”, and to children being valued once born, but the historical sections and the legal sections are pretty fricking clear.

          As long as you’re biblically wrong in your position, and seek to remove personal freedom in the name of misinterpreted Christian Sharia, you’re going to have less and less support.

          • @John, nice try, but Samuel and Exodus were pre-Christian my friend. Besides, war is one thing (you do realize that don’t you?) and the mother sacrificing her innocent baby on the alter of convenience is a whole ‘nuther story…

        • “John, nice try, but Samuel and Exodus were pre-Christian my friend.”

          God is not pre-Christian. And the Ten Commandments weren’t replaced either. And can you find me a single New Testament verse prohibiting abortion?

          “Besides, war is one thing (you do realize that don’t you?)”

          Wars are between combatants. Killing non-combatants, women, children, babies, that is a genocide. It’s as bad as anything the Nazis did to the Jews.

          “and the mother sacrificing her innocent baby on the alter of convenience is a whole ‘nuther story”

          Unless you think those Amalekite babies were somehow guilty of something, the Israelites were sacrificing the innocent babies on the altar (not alter) of their religious beliefs.

          • @John, total war my friend. We prosecuted the Germans and the Japanese with total war…the burning of Toyko and Dresden are just one example. War conducted by nation states is not analogous with abortion no matter how badly you may want it to be.

            God is not pre-Christian? Christianity is nothing if not Christ worship…and you see, Christ came around a few thousand years post-Genesis.

            You claim the “rights of the woman” adult woman over the rights of the infant woman inside the womb. Who appointed you God?

          • @John, I’m not jerry but here are some:

            Old Testament –
            The grandaddy of them all: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13)

            New Testament –
            “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Mathew 19:14)

            One could also surmise that the thought of aborting a child was so repulsive to people back then, it wasn’t even up for discussion to intentionally kill a baby girl or boy.

        • “Old Testament –
          The grandaddy of them all: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13)”

          @El Mac, nice try, but Exodus was pre-Christian my friend.

          And with the previous verse from Exodus that I used, it was CLEAR that the Mosaic Law did not consider terminating a pregnancy to be murder. Since the penalty for terminating a pregnancy was a fine, comparable to causing any other minor injury, and the penalty for murder was death.

          “New Testament –
          “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Mathew 19:14)”

          That is not a prohibition on abortion. And, within the context, it was pretty clearly referring to the kids who were there, that day, coming to visit Jesus. And if you consider a nonviable fetus to be an innocent baby, and innocent people go to heaven when they die, then abortion lets the little children go unhindered to the kingdom of heaven.

          “One could also surmise that the thought of aborting a child was so repulsive to people back then, it wasn’t even up for discussion to intentionally kill a baby girl or boy.”

          This denies all historical evidence from both the Bible and contemporary sources. It is a work of your own fiction. In the book of Numbers there is a trial by ordeal wherein a pregnant woman suspected of infidelity is given a substance (the “bitter water”) that will cause an abortion, and if she is guilty of infidelity, she will miscarriage right there. It’s the “Ordeal of the bitter water” from Numbers 5:11-31. Abortions in ancient times were recorded as early as 1550 B.C.E. in Egypt. The economical and social pressures that cause women to seek abortions are *nothing* new.

          • @John, “@El Mac, nice try, but Exodus was pre-Christian my friend.”

            Well no shit. Or did you miss that I specified that it was from the Old Testament? Engage brain please.

            As for the rest of it, like I said, go enjoy your masturbatory session fantasizing about abortion. Freak.

      • @John, it by converting to pro-Sodomite marriage and pro-Infanticide means we might win some elections, I’ll be happy to continue losing. To sell one’s soul to Satan for an election win ain’t winning bro.

        • I should assume you missed the sarcasm in my post? I am not someone who has confused the killing of an unborn child with freedom.

        • What business is it of you or anyone else if “sodomites” get married? Where’s the constitutional basis for it? How do you justify having religious laws that mirror those of Iran?

          • @John, if its the “religious” aspect that bothers you John, then why do you want to get married? Have your civil union by all means, I could care less. But to denigrate anyone’s religion and the covenant of marriage with the filth of sodomy is the real crime. But of course, that’s why the Sodomites want to do these things. They hate religion of any stripe because it reminds them of their sin. Thus, to force sodomite marriage on to people that do not accept it, the sodomites believe that will somehow alleviate their sin. Ultimately, Sodomites want the institution of marriage destroyed.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJrmBocx0o4&feature=player_embedded

        • Our laws mirror Iran’s? That is probably the dumbest thing that will be posted here today. Congrats.

        • Basing laws on a fundamentalist interpretation of religion is what they do in Iran. Iran makes homosexuality illegal. Iran has strict controls on abortion, it is only allowed by the religious leadership if it endangers the life of the mother or has severe deformities, and this is a recent change (2005). Iran is a theocracy. Wanting a country where the laws follow fundamentalist interpretations of your religion is a desire for a theocracy. That’s why the Libertarian Party, in it’s opposition to government control over the individual, opposes theocratic laws.

          Call me dumb all you want. You’ll keep backing authoritarian statist Republicans so long as they talk the religious talk.

        • Never said you were dumb, just your post. In Iran, homosexuals are arrested and in some cases executed. Laws defining marriage as being between a man and a woman fall somewhat short of that mark. Abortion is legal in this country so you can go right out and have one now if you would like. Concern for the life of an unborn child does not make me an islamist nutjob, nor a dictator. I realize in libertarian cuckoo land you like to throw around terms like statist and authoritarian but you really have no idea what the terms mean.

        • “Laws defining marriage as being between a man and a woman fall somewhat short of that mark.”

          Where is the constitutional authority to define marriage as only being between a man and a woman?

          How is personal freedom promoted by enforcing your religious view on the politics of others?

          A liberal would say “In England, handgun ownership is banned. Laws requiring universal background checks fall somewhat short of that mark.”

          You’re cut from the same cloth.

        • Sigh. really no point in this is there? No the constitution says nothing about marriage between a man and woman, says nothing about abortion. So? The matter is left up to the states is it not? You my friend have confused self-indulgence with freedom. I don’t give two shits about gay marriage, you equating our laws with Iran’s is what got my attention. I do have an issue with unrestricted abortion. If protecting the innocent, the helpless, is not a legitimate function of government I have no idea what is.

          • @jerry, “I do have an issue with unrestricted abortion. If protecting the innocent, the helpless, is not a legitimate function of government I have no idea what is.”

            Amen brother. Amen.

        • “The matter is left up to the states is it not?”

          If a state restricts a freedom, it is still a restriction of freedom.

          “You my friend have confused self-indulgence with freedom.”

          You have changed your definition of freedom to fit your political goals. What makes self-indulgence incompatible with freedom?

          “I do have an issue with unrestricted abortion.”

          Good for you. It’s not unrestricted *now*. So you’ve already got regulation. Like with gun control, where does the regulation end?

          “If protecting the innocent, the helpless, is not a legitimate function of government I have no idea what is.”

          First, this is a mirror of the argument I hear from the left for gun control, civilian ownership bans, leaving everything up to the police, etc. Second, if you want to protect children, do you support free government healthcare from birth-18? Do you support government-funded schools? Government rules on backyard pool safety? Government mandated helmet laws for child bicyclists? Government tracking of children from birth for safety? Where does the government intrusion into the individual end?

          You have every right to oppose somebody getting an abortion, and you never need to get one yourself if you don’t like it. But you’d get a lot further trying to create a world in which no woman ever feels she needs an abortion than you would trying to have the government tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies, and using the power of the State to force an individual to go through a medically risky pregnancy.

          My wife had a cesarean less than a month ago. I was in the OR with her. She could have easily died at that point, thankfully she did not. This was her choice. When she had that choice, it is freedom. If the state had said she did not have that choice, and must go through with the surgery, that is tyranny.

          • @John, when faced with facts, obfuscate no?

            Caesarian section is not abortion. Both of my children were born via C-section. Interesting that you confuse the two.

        • Oh John. Like I said no point. You see laws restricting abortions as restricting freedom. I do not. No right to tell people what to do with their bodies? True, if we were talking about getting a tattoo or a piercing. We are talking about terminating a pregnancy, a human life. You see the difference? No, you probably do not. I am done with this except to say I love how you used the old “risky pregnancy” argument. You know perfectly well that the vast majority of abortions are performed for the sake of convenience, not because of the risk to the mother.

          • @jerry, “You know perfectly well that the vast majority of abortions are performed for the sake of convenience, not because of the risk to the mother.”

            BOOM! There is it…the fart in church….the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about…..Truth. Well said jerry.

        • “John, if its the “religious” aspect that bothers you John, then why do you want to get married? Have your civil union by all means, I could care less.”

          I’m married, to my wife, and we just had a kid. What bothers me is this idea that you’re trying to force on us that our marriage, whether with a heterosexual couple like mine, or with a homosexual or bisexual couple, has to be religious. Moreover, it has to be *your* religion.

          “But to denigrate anyone’s religion and the covenant of marriage with the filth of sodomy is the real crime.”

          No it isn’t, and there are plenty of religions (like mine) that don’t have a problem with homosexuality or with gay marriage. You’re trying to force my religion to follow your religion’s rules on marriage.

          “But of course, that’s why the Sodomites want to do these things. They hate religion of any stripe because it reminds them of their sin.”

          Again, my religion has no problem with it. And there’s no shortage of Christians out there who have a different interpretation of the Bible than yours who don’t have a problem with it. But you want to force your definition of marriage on us.

          “Thus, to force sodomite marriage on to people that do not accept it, the sodomites believe that will somehow alleviate their sin.”

          If you’re not a dude being forced to marry a dude, or a lady being forced to marry a lady, “sodomite marriage” isn’t being forced on you. No more than interracial marriage was “forced” on people when the anti-miscegenation laws were repealed.

          “Ultimately, Sodomites want the institution of marriage destroyed.”

          Your insistence on “sodomite” is not going to win you any support from anyone younger than 40 who didn’t grow up in a cult. On top of that, “sodomy” isn’t just homosexuality, it is any type of sex besides ordinary vaginal intercourse. Somebody getting a BJ is a “sodomite”. Even if it’s a man getting it from his wife. And you’d want to put those rules in place for their marriage, indeed those laws *used* to be on the books.

          And jerry, you say you’re not bothered by gay marriage, but this is the sort of person you’ve got as political allies.

          “Caesarian section is not abortion. Both of my children were born via C-section. Interesting that you confuse the two.”

          Cesarean is a risky surgery at the end of pregnancy which has a very real danger for the mother. Many pregnancies now require cesareans for a variety of reasons. My wife’s pregnancy was completely normal and healthy up until the due date, when our baby was turned wrong and wouldn’t enter the birth canal correctly, necessitating the c-section. Forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy means forcing her to take on that risk to her life. Anything can go very wrong at any point, and childbirth is a dangerous process. Forcing someone to go through with that against their will is *worse*, by far, than passing a law banning tattoos.

          “You know perfectly well that the vast majority of abortions are performed for the sake of convenience, not because of the risk to the mother.”

          Would you want to force someone willing to have an abortion simply “for the sake of convenience” to then instead raise a child? Where’s the humanity in that, for the mother or the child?

          • @John, I never said marriage has to by my religion. Nice try. But no religion that I’m aware of advocates or condones marriage between Sodomites. In fact, Islam calls for a Sodomite’s death. Christians do not advocate that.

            You approve of marriage based on sin. Ok. I will not change that. That is something you will have to live with.

            You approve of infanticide. You will have to live with that as well.

            To reiterate, if winning elections means having to submit and/or approve of either sodomite marriage or infanticide, then I’m all for sticking on principle and losing elections.

        • “I never said marriage has to by my religion.”

          Yes you did. You are a liar. You said “But to denigrate anyone’s religion and the covenant of marriage with the filth of sodomy is the real crime” which means you think that any marriage that doesn’t meet the requirements or standards of *your* religion is one that “denigrates” your religion and is a “sin”.

          “But no religion that I’m aware of advocates or condones marriage between Sodomites.”

          Episcopal Church of the United States
          Metropolitan Community Church
          United Church of Christ
          United Church of Canada
          Unitarian Universalism
          Conservative Judaism
          Reform Judaism
          Buddhism (has no position for or against)
          Wicca
          Paganism
          Assorted Native American Religions
          Hinduism is on the fence about it, with their focus on reincarnation many believe that it is the spirit that falls in love and not the body, and the spirit has no gender

          The problem is that you likely don’t view any of the above religions as “real” religions.

          “In fact, Islam calls for a Sodomite’s death. Christians do not advocate that.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014

          That’s recent. In the past, “Christians” have executed people for homosexuality, and with some frequency.

          “You approve of marriage based on sin.”

          I don’t call it sin.

          In Second Corinthians 6:14, Paul says explicitly “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”

          This prohibits marriage between Christians and non-Christians. He later clarifies that if two unbelievers are married *and one converts to Christianity*, that new Christian should not then get a divorce. But for an existing Christian, it is explicitly and Biblically prohibited, in the New Testament, to marry a non-believer. It is a sin, causing fellowship between light and darkness.

          Are you pushing for a law banning marriage between believers and nonbelievers? Or are you a hypocrite who picks and chooses which verses of the Bible to follow depending on what viscerally disgusts you? That is something you will have to live with.

          “You approve of infanticide. You will have to live with that as well.”

          Infanticide is killing an infant. One has to be born to be an infant. It is impossible to have an infanticide without being born already. Nobody supports infanticide (except for maybe the God of the Old Testament), and it is already illegal. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy prior to the point of viability. Before that point, it is not an independent human being, it is a part of the woman’s body, and a law regulating that is a law regulating what an independent person can do with their own body. The laws in the US concerning abortion are, in fact, stricter than any law in the Bible about it. You worship a God who, even if he later changed his mind, at one time was fine with killing infants because they were from a rival tribe. That’s something you have to live with.

          • @John, a denomination is not a “religion” my friend.

            As for being a liar, that is your opinion and a rather misinformed one, but I respect your right to be misinformed.

            Interesting that you seem to advocate against the killing of babies, unborn or otherwise, in the act of conducting war. But you are all for it when it comes to the convenience of the mother, or rather, the female that has the unwanted mass within her womb. A strange dichotomy.

        • “@John, a denomination is not a “religion” my friend.”

          I don’t know what John McCain school of debate you went to, but using “my friend” obsessively doesn’t win you any friends. It just makes you look disingenuous and slimy, like a politician.

          “Interesting that you seem to advocate against the killing of babies, unborn or otherwise, in the act of conducting war. But you are all for it when it comes to the convenience of the mother, or rather, the female that has the unwanted mass within her womb.”

          I think that free people should have autonomy over their own bodies. I advocate against the killing of babies. A nonviable fetus is not a baby. As many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage — most often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she is pregnant. About 15% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage. More than 80% of miscarriages occur within the first three months of pregnancy. If a nonviable fetus is a “baby”, it would mean that God kills more babies with spontaneous abortion than mankind does with medical abortion.

          “A strange dichotomy.”

          Only if you don’t know what the word “dichotomy” means.

          • @John, since you do not want to be a friend, I will cease calling you that. Do you prefer d-bag or friendo?

            So now its nonviable fetus is it? Then by extrapolation…and old person completely dependent on outside care (feeding, wiping ass, showering, etc.) to maintain life should or at least could be terminated by say, a family member that no longer wants to see to that care? When does a child become viable? At age, what?

            Your arguments are circular and “nonviable”.

            Free people do have autonomy over their bodies…which is exaclty why abortions should be outlawed and the abortees should be protected from people like yourself.

        • “So now its nonviable fetus is it?”

          I have literally never said otherwise. Fetal viability usually doesn’t occur until the 24th week of pregnancy. In most places, abortion is banned prior to the 20th week except in extreme cases.

          “Then by extrapolation…and old person completely dependent on outside care (feeding, wiping ass, showering, etc.) to maintain life should or at least could be terminated by say, a family member that no longer wants to see to that care?”

          Are you familiar with the concept of a living will, and of a medical power of attorney?

          “When does a child become viable? At age, what?”

          A fetus becomes viable when it is able to survive outside the uterus. Odds of this survival presently are 20-30% at 23 weeks of gestation, 50-70% at 24 weeks (generally considered the point of viability) and 90% at 26 to 25 weeks of gestation. At present the youngest successful birth was at 21 weeks of gestation. This concept was all part of the legal side of the abortion debate going back to Roe V. Wade, you *should* be familiar with it.

          “Your arguments are circular and “nonviable”.”

          No they aren’t. Your saying so does not make it so.

          “Free people do have autonomy over their bodies”

          Right now they do, but not if you have your way.

          • @John, you know what they say about arguing with a fool, or in this case a d-bag. Enjoy your masturbatory session.

  29. I voted and sure enough not for b.o. I personally think the vote was rigged. Why? There isn’t that many stupid citizens in this Republic? Let’s all watch our backs out there.

  31. Accur81, well said, after all, B.O. said we are going to save $2,500 a year and period, in health care. Him all of his cronies are rather not trust worthy, can’t say more than that, I’m being watched! All be very careful out there!!!

  33. How does this compare? Shouldn’t we have a political sphere free from fear?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michael-bloomberg-i-have-earned-my-place-heaven_786943.html

    “Mr. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, said gun control advocates need to learn from the N.R.A. and punish those politicians who fail to support their agenda — even Democrats whose positions otherwise align with his own.

    “They say, ‘We don’t care. We’re going to go after you,’ ” he said of the N.R.A. “ ‘If you don’t vote with us we’re going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great-grandkids. And we’re never going to stop.’ ”

    He added: “We’ve got to make them afraid of us.””

    So I guess fear is okay as long as it’s the enemies of the collective who are afraid.

  34. I agree with everything said in the article except one glaringly massive mistake. The use of the term “anti-Semite”, as used in this piece, is completely incorrect. Semite =a) a member of any of a number of people of ancient southwestern Asia including the Accadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs, b) a descendant of these people, and c) a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language.

    The way that it’s being used comes off as the equivalent of “Black” only referring to darker complected Americans of West African descent. Lighter ones somehow belong to a different group. Using it in that manner obfuscates its true meaning and warps it into something that it is not. I was under the impression that we hated that sort of thing here.

    Secondly, the notion of a “hate crime” is ridiculous. It is nothing more than an admission that the judges in the justice system are entirely too bigoted and prejudicial to do their job. For which, the focus should be on removing those judges and not creating an arbitrary legal standard that places greater value on the lives of a few. Murder is murder regardless of motive. We have laws on the books for that.

  35. This blog is truth about guns and all this shit about killing baby’s is a F _ _ _ ing sin! Get a grip if you want to kill babys I’m on the wrong site and quoting the old testament in this theater is BS too. I just deactivated this shit, want no more of it. When The SHTF I hope the asses are covered! I’ll receive new posts, but not this stuff.

Comments are closed.